Max unit amount u want to handle in battle

[MagyarKhans Cham]

seems i made a wrong poll before, which was ment to be about battlemaps sizes.

this one is about teh actual number of units u would like to command at the same time on teh field in a 1 vs 1...

[chunkynut]

With many medieval battles taking place with thousands of troops there should be more.

With 16 units on default unit size and each one 100 (ok not all are) thats only 1600 troops. I say at least double it so my vote is 32.

This gives you the option to fight larger battles. With that said you can have a couple of thousand spears and swords and the rest aux troops, you'd have a great time.

Now i know this could have been soley MP but i think this reaches both sides of MTW.

[A.Saturnus]

Yeah, larger battles
Often enough the AI looses battles while having overwhelming numbers because the first 16 units do not enough damage to the player`s 16. When both forces have above 1000 men, they fight actually with equal numbers. Especially the attacker is supposed to beat the enemy with the first 16. With 32 units on field it would be much easier to overrun the defender with sheer numbers.

[Orda Khan]

32 simply because it's twice what we have now so should be easy enough

.....Orda

[CBR]

Think Im satisfied with less but 32 is nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Only problem would be the size of battlefield. If you want to use an all cav army with lots of cav archers you really want space to be able to maneuver, so bigger maps are needed too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR

[Maelstrom]

I don't think any more unit would work without bigger maps incorporating larger scale features (bigger woods, broader hills, etc.)

[The Scourge]

Pretty satisfied with the way it is now,but maybe I could get used to 32.

[chunkynut]

I would like to add aswell that with the increase in units controlled by 1v1 factions the ability to manage reserves would be great. (this is not reinforcements)

At present i fine i must engage my whole force or the threat of being flanked is a risk.

As people have pointed out the maps would be too small for an increase in numbers of units. This is not a problem if you have reserve units. Most battles in medieval times did not involve all of the forces but only the front line troops which were rotated with reserves when tired and casualties taken and sometimes only at dire need.

This would be more managing of your troops but worth it but would be soley up to the dicretion of the player and would be something that i would wish to employ.

[G0THIC-Lobster]

well now i usally go for small battles with 2 or 3 unit in it, too man unit is hard to master and sometimes screwed up my com.

[The Scourge]

Sounds good ,but then the AI code would have to be rewritten to cope with that,or the human player would never lose.
That was for ChunkyNut btw.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

or make it 16 for sp and 32 for mp?

[AMPage]

Well for single player i would go with 32. You can pause the game and issue new orders to units in single player. So really number of units wouldn't matter to me.

I voted for 20, since i play multiplayer mostly. It's hard enough to control 16 units at once if you have to rush. 20 units is the max i would go. If you could slow down the game speed i would go with 32 units. Also if you could buy reinforcements in multiplayer i would go with 16 units to start and 16 units for reinfocements.

[baz]

16 can be a handfull at times, but i reckon with time we could get used to fighting with 32, maybe the extra units could be ones that dont need excessive micromanagement.

[DthB4Dishonour]

If you could have reinforcements in MP that would truly make the game epic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Imagine a battle where you try and count enemy units but are not sure. You have to keep a main camp and send your troops out wisely.

Your main troops have routed the enemy but you see 10 reinforced units coming out Gah pull back to camp. Becareful pursuing my men which are pulling back there might be an ambush (which never work in MP because all good players count the units of the enemy.)

Reinfrocements would truly make the game epic. You can decide on spending your money on 16 strong units or 24 medium or 32 weak.

[1dread1lahll]

We are allowed 16,... I dont know if the engine allows for more or why we are limited to 16... there may be reasons...........but i voted for 48 plus...... that would require larger maps and a greater degree of skill in commanding groups and MARCHING...both of which are the most lacking in most players... marching is a skill that has won many battles befor they were fought..it would add depth to the game.....

[hoom]

32 because it would be cool and much more would be really difficult to handle.
As for map size, 32 units of default size is the same number of people as 16 units of maximum size.

Of course, I'd like to see 32 units of maximum size being playable. The trick there is that you can't rely on having all your troops arrayed on advantageous ground.
You would be forced to actually place units in difficult positions and even occasionally split your forces eg on two hilltops or use defensive squares etc

An issue with the maps.
Most of the time the good defensive positions tend to be on the edge, where you have your back against an invisible wall, so can't be outflanked.
With 32 units this would be vastly excaserbated and I think it would be advantageous to design the maps with defensive positions towards the middle of the map, or perhaps with a smaller area available for deployment compared to combat.

[Dionysus9]

I think we could handle twice the number of units by just grouping them a little more. Instead of having just a unit of archers, you would group two of them, or one archer and one spear. If you did this with all 32 units you would be back to 16 moveable groups. If you want to add more groups then it gets closer to 8.

Of course you still have 32 units to order once your organization breaks down....but that just adds to the Chaos , which is white I thrive on....

[Razorman400]

I was thinking of some ideas to get more units on the battlefield without losing the amount of control you have over them. Maybe the ability to assign a certian number of units to one of your AI generals before the battle starts. This way you can control say 16 units which would be one army group, then two other AI generals controling the other two army groups of 16 units, with the option of switching which group you are in command of personally.

I think this way you could have an easier time fighting huge battles with more then 48 units at the same time. AI generals could be given basic commands, capture bridge, hold hill, artillery support, etc. Anyway that's my idea on this topic.

I think it would be great to have bigger armies fighting at the same time, far more epic.

[Orda Khan]

The map size would need to be much bigger, let's face it it's already crowded in a 4v4. It would be nice to have more space.
Bacchus is right, using groups makes marching much easier and they would also resemble more accurately a real army on the move

.....Orda http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Postino]

IMO smaller battles allow for more finess(

[Bob the Insane]

In a wishing type situation....

I would have the Performance slider not alter the number of soldiers in a unit but the number of units each side can have on the battle field at once...